onyxruby:There's a hole in there response big enough to drive a truck through. They will only support unlocking /if/ your phone is paid for and off contract.

That's not exactly what they said. They simply said that there shouldn't be anything preventing you from manipulating your phone -- whether legal or technological -- when such a situation does arise. That doesn't necessarily mean that it will stay illegal when you ARE under contract. They didn't say anything concrete about what sort of changes to policy might be made, they only agreed with the petition that unlocking your phone shouldn't be illegal, and enumerated the reasons why.

Can we add to that making it illegal to be forced to buy 300 cable channels when you watch only 2?

No

Please no

If the government gets involved in regulation of cable networks in a complex fashion we will see FCC obscenity rules apply to these stations. Now, I dont know about you, but I really appreciate the beauty of a woman's breasts. That kind of shiat goes bye-bye

I've never understood how we can be told men and women are equals in the eyes of the law and that gender discrimination is illegal, yet also told men's breasts are A-OK to see outside, on TV, etc, while women's are not.

Can we add to that making it illegal to be forced to buy 300 cable channels when you watch only 2?

No

Please no

If the government gets involved in regulation of cable networks in a complex fashion we will see FCC obscenity rules apply to these stations. Now, I dont know about you, but I really appreciate the beauty of a woman's breasts. That kind of shiat goes bye-bye

I've never understood how we can be told men and women are equals in the eyes of the law and that gender discrimination is illegal, yet also told men's breasts are A-OK to see outside, on TV, etc, while women's are not.

It's more about supply and demand. Nobody wants to see men's boobs. Make it illegal and you'll get $0 in fines. Women's boobs fuel all economic transactions. Much more fines to be had.

Can we add to that making it illegal to be forced to buy 300 cable channels when you watch only 2?

No

Please no

If the government gets involved in regulation of cable networks in a complex fashion we will see FCC obscenity rules apply to these stations. Now, I dont know about you, but I really appreciate the beauty of a woman's breasts. That kind of shiat goes bye-bye

I've never understood how we can be told men and women are equals in the eyes of the law and that gender discrimination is illegal, yet also told men's breasts are A-OK to see outside, on TV, etc, while women's are not.

I don't want women's boobs to be made legal, on a routine basis. Remove the forbidden aspect of nudity and eventually, it all becomes commonplace and unexciting. Yes, there would be a few really, really good looking people who would still attract attention, but those would be few and far between. At one time, in many parts of this country, ANYBODY being topless was against local laws. As men gained the 'right' to appear topless it became run of the mill and now it's not an item of contention even among those who want very strict laws regulating nudity on tv. No, leave them quasi-legal, with HBO and Cinemax being able to show full frontal (at 'appropriate times' whatever that means) and other networks seeing how far they can push that limit instead of it becoming just another over-used stunt that no longer attracts attention.

Steve Zodiac:No, leave them quasi-legal, with HBO and Cinemax being able to show full frontal (at 'appropriate times' whatever that means) and other networks seeing how far they can push that limit instead of it becoming just another over-used stunt that no longer attracts attention.

Many of you will not be old enough to remember (though may have seen in retrospect), Carlin's "words", or Johnny Carson getting the word "biatch" on OTA television, but it was much the same situation as this.

MacWizard:I testified at a DMCA exemption hearing once. The Copyright Office has less of a grasp on technology than the average 12-year-old.

Were I not in the employ of said Office I might publicly concur.

But I am, so I won't.

Not that I have that much of a grasp on it, personally. I use it, sure, but I don't understand how it works all that well. But I think a lot of the problem comes from legal frameworks about intellectual property that were conceived when movable-type printing presses were an innovation. Attaching long-term material rights to things that are by their nature ephemeral, when replication of such has moved from "complex and expensive" to "trivial" is bound to have unintended consequences.

Deucednuisance:MacWizard: I testified at a DMCA exemption hearing once. The Copyright Office has less of a grasp on technology than the average 12-year-old.

Were I not in the employ of said Office I might publicly concur.

But I am, so I won't.

Not that I have that much of a grasp on it, personally. I use it, sure, but I don't understand how it works all that well.

To be fair, I don't think everyone at the Copyright Office is a technological idiot. There were only five people from the CO at the hearing and one or two of them seemed to have some perception. But Mary Beth Peters definitely seemed to have less of a grasp than the average 12-year-old, if the blank stare and rolling of eyes at every technical explanation was any indication. She's the one in charge, which makes it a problem.

But I think a lot of the problem comes from legal frameworks about intellectual property that were conceived when movable-type printing presses were an innovation. Attaching long-term material rights to things that are by their nature ephemeral, when replication of such has moved from "complex and expensive" to "trivial" is bound to have unintended consequences.

It seems that attaching "long-term material rights" to something that was once for a "limited time" was the first step in the problem. The second was trying to make material rights apply to ones and zeros.

The greatest error of the copyright system, however, was losing sight of the original goal of protecting the authors and creators in favor of protecting those who would exploit their works. When moveable-type printing presses were the issue, the idea was to protect the authors from the publishers. That has long since been abandoned in favor of trying to protect the publishers, record labels and movie studios. The "legal framework" enabled these entities to gain power by keeping replication "complex and expensive" while contracturally relieving the authors and creators of their individual copyright protection (see "work for hire").

Now that replication is trivial, the exploiting entities are the ones the Copyright Office is trying to protect, not the authors and creators, who were cast by the wayside a long time ago. It has failed its mission "to promote creativity by administering and sustaining an effective national copyright system."

MacWizard:But Mary Beth Peters...'s the one in charge, which makes it a problem.

I have Good News, Everyone!

Ms. Peters retired on the last day of 2010. She is replaced by the very capable Maria Pallante.

As to the rest, well, we're working on it. We still have a lot of folks who think about "legal" analysis rather than "technological".

But it would be remiss of me to fail to point out the we do not draft the statutes under which we operate. The lengthening of the span of a copyright lies at the feet of Congress, not us. We're largely an Office of Record.

As to transfer of ownership rights, yeah you may have a point. But this modern world is making it ever more easy for creative people to bypass publishers entirely. Take a look at http://jococruisecrazy.com/ - pretty much all of the entertainers are self-produced and distributed, and they're all making a living at it. The boat was full of people doing/wanting to do the same. A particularly engaging hour was spent on the "Quitting Panel", with a number of creative people at varying stages of their self-made-ness talking about How To Do It. It was inspiring. (Yes, I was on the boat, had a great time and have already booked for next year.)

Pretty sure that 3.55 is about 2 years old at this point too, and beyond that the installer changed massively and has not been reverse engineered, so no, you cannot just downgrade a PS3. Beyond this it's illegal, strictly speaking.